Last time, 132,000 people voted. In 2002, it was about 140,000 — a high that hadn’t been seen since the 1980s.

What’s going to happen this time? Not clear yet. Paul Hancock from the city’s election office says turnout has been pretty steady, but it’s hard to say yet whether it will be higher. The advance polls were a lot higher — about 15,000 people voted in the four advance polls this year, compared to about 8,700 in 2005.

Certainly, Vision seems to have its team mobilized to drag out every last person prepared to vote for them. They have just over 1,000 volunteers out in the field, many of them working from “zone houses” in neighbourhoods, so as to spread out their personpower.

According to the NPA campaign office, the party has about about 500 volunteers out, although it has typically relied more on paid phone-banking to mobilize voters in the past.

I should say that I have already been given pretty good indications from both sides about what the results are likely to be, but in my Canadian fair-minded way, I won’t say what they are right now, so as to give everyone a chance to vote without noise going on. Watch this space at around 7:30.

For the moment, everyone just seems to be relieved that it’s finally voting day and the craziness is over at last.

Peter Ladner told reporters, who were waiting for him in a pack when he went to vote at Bayswater Elementary School around 10:15,  that he went for a run this morning, had a good sleep and was feeling relaxed about the day. “It’s all over but the counting.”

He spent the morning mainstreeting in Yaletown and was feeling positive about that, then was off to make phone calls after voting.

Gregor Robertson walked over from his house to Emily Carr Elementary School (which is almost in his backyard) to vote around 10:45 with wife Amy. Like Peter, he said he had a good night’s sleep and, like Peter, he also talked about the difficulty of the campaign.

“It’s been challenging and frustrating because a lot of attention was attracted away from important issues.” Meaning, of course, the fuss over his unpaid SkyTrain fine, first of all, and then, more seriously, the news of the $100-million loan that councillors approved for the Olympic village builder.

As it turns out, none of that made a difference to voters, as I’ll explain later. Now I’m off to vote myself and talk to more people. Til later.

But, really, aren’t you finding this Olympic-loan, hunt-for-the-leaker saga is all really like a Tom Wolfe novel? We have the mass media in full hyena mode (I’m one of them, so I’m allowed to say that), irresolvable mysteries, people being torn to shreds, cheap politics of the worst kind on all sides.

So the latest.

B.C. Lee is devastated at the news that his own city secretary, Cecelia Smith, has sworn an affadavit essentially saying that he wasn’t telling the truth about the purloined Olympic-loan documents.

Lee says he hasn’t been able to talk to her about it because she won’t answer his calls — which must be quite awkward considering she’s still technically his assistant. (All councillors share an assistant. Cecelia works for Tim Stevenson, David Cadman and Lee.)

But he claims that what she says in her affadavit is not true. He has said that he went to his office just before 7 p.m. on Oct. 16, just before a public hearing started, and found the missing Olympic-loan documents on his desk — the ones that had gone missing two days earlier after an in-camera meeting. (By the way, I thought that the discovery of the original loss had been followed by an email from the city manager’s office five minutes after that meeting, saying a copy had gone missing and asking for its return. But, no, apparently Judy Rogers herself, along with Southeast False Creek project manager Jody Andrews, went around from office to office, asking people to go through their papers to see if they had picked up a copy by accident.)

Based on that time frame, Global, working on an anonymous tip from someone at city hall, named Raymond Louie as the prime suspect because his card got swiped to enter the councillors’ area around 6 p.m. (Of course, that doesn’t account for the fact that others may have been hanging around there all day, along with other staff. The card swipes don’t record when you leave, only when someone enters.)

But Cecelia’s affadavit says Lee called her to his office sometime between 2 and 3:45 and told her that he had just found the documents.

Lee, who sounded pretty upset and almost tearful at this strange ending to his short political career, said that there is no way he could have been in his office at that time because he was at an environment committee meeting — and all you have to do is check the video to see that he is there. That meeting lasted until 4:45. Lee says he then went to have a talk with staffer Wendy Au, then had dinner, then went back to his office and found the documents there. At that point, he took them strait to deputy city manager James Ridge.

Cecelia’s affadavit says Lee also told her on Oct. 14 that people were concerned about the missing documents. But Lee says Cecelia wouldn’t have been at city hall by the time the in-camera meeting was finished, because it was late by then and staff would have gone home.

“This is a very sad note in my political life,” said Lee.

It’s absolutely baffling as I cannot imagine Cecelia making a false statement.

(If you wish, you can read more about this in other media here and here

I think we can now safely conclude that there is absolutely no way to figure out what the heck is going on here. We have people on all sides swearing up and down to completely contradictory sets of facts. Clearly there is something exceptionally weird going on at city hall — some destructive person or set of people who are pretty intent on leaving 12th and Cambie as a smouldering ruin, for whatever reasons. My guess is someone who figures they have nothing left to lose.

Can’t imagine who that might be.

I think it’s time to ignore all this and go back to the basics. Time to think about who will actually steer Vancouver through the next three years in a good way. I won’t pretend to tell you who that is. We all have different priorities and you’ll all decide what your version of “good” is.

On a lighter and more positive note — didn’t the city look beautiful today? I drove to the CBC at 7 a.m. across the Cambie Bridge and it was stunning. There was a full moon hanging in the air behind the North False Creek towers. The sky was clear and blue after a night of wind. All the glass windows in the downtown reflected the light of the dawn sky. The mountains in the distance were a pale blue.

Sometimes I get bummed out with all the things that aren’t right about Vancouver. But I looked at that scene and thought what a lovely city we have.

But if you break it down by how much they spent per voter, Robertson was more cost-efficient. He paid $13./23 per Vision Vancouver member (13,623 were eligible to vote) or $51.82 for each of the 3,495 votes he actually got. Ladner, on the other hand, paid $148.35 for each of the actual 1,066 votes he got in his race against Sam Sullivan or about $39.53 per eligible voter, assuming the NPA had about 4,000 members — something we don’t know for sure because they never told us.

I’m a little surprised to see that no developers gave to Gregor Robertson, after all the chatter from both the left and right about how Vision is in bed with developers. (Maybe they all gave to Raymond Louie, someone they feel a little more in tune with than Gregor.) Instead, his big donors seemed to be himself, Joel Solomon at Renewal Partners, and Bob Penner’s Strategic Communications, along with various new-agey type companies.

Ladner, on the other hand, did get some of the developer money: Westbank, Macdonald Developments, Concord and others.

Now if only we could see Sam Sullivan’s missing contributor list.

But that doesn’t appear to be the case. I dropped by three of the four advance polls today where everyone was reporting higher turnout than the last election, which drew a respectable 132,000 voters.

At Dunbar, the election official running things there told me it had been steady all day. She’s worked previous elections and had never seen such a high turnout. The count was at 942 by 6 p.m., with more people coming in all the time. Lots of young people, said the nice woman.

Over at Trout Lake, the count by 7 p.m. was 505. That was 100 ahead of the total for the same poll in 2005.

“We’re assuming people up up election fever from last night,” said Raymond Milne, who was running that voting station. There’s a theory — rather than being worn out by elections, yesterday’s election of Barack Obama as U.S. president was so exciting and energizing that it encouraged a lot of people here to run out and vote.

At city hall, the woman running things there, Judy, said that was their best guess as well, since they were also definitely running ahead of 2005, with 782 people voting by 7:30 compared to 527 at the same time three years ago. (Very precise records these people keep.)

I didn’t have the energy to run over to the West End, but Judy said it was definitely Dunbar in the lead with the other three advance polls at lower levels, all around the same numbers. That means likely close to 4,000 voters for just the first of three advance polls. The higher numbers could potentially be attributed to the new rules, which say that anyone who wants to can now vote in an advance poll, not just those from out of town, but I highly doubt that anyone even knows about those rules.

For more reading on the connection between Barack Obama and the local Vancouver election, you can read the post on my CTV blog about the Vision?COPE party last night to celebrate the win and motivate the troops — which didn’t go 100 per cent as planned, though almost.

For people who want to look at the historical record on turnout, there’s a good table from the city here. People who think there was some huge drop in turnout between 2002, when Larry Campbell was elected for COPE, and 2005, when Sam Sullivan was elected for the Non-Partisan Association, should note that there isn’t really that big a difference. About 140,000 people voted in 2002; about 132,000 in 2005. The difference is that someone the city put 130,000 new people onto its eligible voters list between the two elections, so that it appeared as though turnout dropped from 50 per cent to 32. But it didn’t really.

The debate in brief: Peter Ladner is more of a street-fighter in every encounter with Gregor Robertson, throwing punch after punch at Gregor’s inexperience. Gregor, on the other hand, is seeming more relaxed and even making the odd joke. More serious details tomorrow.

But the real news of the night was the NDP wins in two Vancouver byelections, with Spencer Herbert winning handily over Liberal candidate Arthur Griffiths by 1,600 votes, while Jenn McGinn is currently up by 600 votes over Margaret McDiarmid. That has to be worrying for the Non-Partisan Association and a champagne moment for Vision Vancouver. Those wins, combined with what appears to be an imminent Barack Obama win to the south, creates a potential mood of “Oh, what the heck, let’s just keep voting out all the oldtimers and go for the new guy.”

The challenge for Peter is whether he can convince voters that he stands for change, which is what he’s trying to do. Or maybe he can hope on that change the voters went for in the federal election where, here in B.C., they were far more inclined to go for the Conservatives than the NDP as they fled from the Liberals.

Michael Geller, a development consultant and expert on how real-estate economics work, is not in favour, nor is Sean Bickerton, a new NPA candidate who lives in Tinseltown.

Michael, who has steadfastly put out thoughtful positions on the issues even when they are not in line with party policy, had this to say on the issue:

The question of the fair determination and allocation of property taxes is much more complex than can be answered yes or no.  For instance, I personally think we should be considering revisions to the residential classification to distinguish between low density single family housing and higher density housing which places less demands on city services.

similarly, by always taxing a property based on its highest and best use, regardless of its actual use, can also be very unfair. One of the reasons we are losing gas stations in the city is because the property taxes are often based on the value of the site as a 20 storey apartment building, not as a gas station.

Now I definitely do not support the suggestion made by one candidate that perhaps the taxes should be based on how well a business is doing. But I am the first to admit that over time, there is room for more adjustment to create a more equitable system. I am the first to admit I need to learn more about this issue.

My yes or no answer to the question was in large part a reflection of my concern for the increase in residential property taxes, which does in fact affect owners and renters, especially for those homeowners under 55 who cannot take advantage of the Provincial Government’s deferral program.  But that’s another story!

The mayoral candidates also got to have their usual say, which I won’t repeat. Instead, I’ll focus on what was new and different about this event, which attracted about 200 people — or “real people,” as we media scrubs like to call them, to distinguish them from the placard-waving supporters who dominated the first two debates.

So, new and different?

1. Both mayoral candidates, Peter Ladner and Gregor Robertson, used the occasion to steal from each other’s playbooks. Peter made his usual stump speech (I have experience and you need that when the world is imploding), but kicked off by saying that he was offering “leadership and action.” Uh, isn’t that two of the three words on all those blue and green Vision signs around town, not to mention the mantra that Gregor has been chanting since early September? Yes, indeed, a break-and-enter in plain sight.

Countering that, Gregor didn’t steal from the NPA’s platform but he did steal a trick Peter has been using along with going through his usual stump speech (Are you better off now after three years of the NPA?) My media companion, Allen Garr, noted in a column last week that Peter starts every debate he’s at by mentioning some kind of link he has with the group or the neighbourhood associated with the debate. It’s a subtle way of underlining what he’s been saying overtly for a while, that he has deep roots in the community and Gregor just got here on the bus five minutes ago. He did it again Friday by mentioning that he’d been at the Greek festival in the same building recently, that his mother lived nearby, that he himself had rented an apartment near Arbutus Village, etc. etc. (Oddly, unless I missed something, he didn’t overly stress the fact that actually he grew up in Shaughnessy.)

But this time, Gregor tried to do the same. He mentioned that his great-uncle Bruce and wife Jean lived in Shaughnessy and Christmas at their house every year was a treasured occasion for his family (who lived in North Van). He talked about going out with his kids on bike races around the Crescent, something they do frequently since he lives nearby at 23rd and Oak, and mentioned that one of his teens is attending Prince of Wales across the road from the Hellenic Centre where the debate was held.

It’s interesting to see how both campaigns have taken what they believe is working from their opponent’s campaign and appropriated it.

2. The second interesting part of the night was the way all of the issues were narrowly focused on a few things that apparently this group cared about passionately, namely:

- council’s recent decision to allow townhouses to be built on the lower part of the historic McRae House (the University Women’s Club house) in order to ensure the developer didn’t tear it down

- planned new development at Arbutus Village

- general veiled discontent with EcoDensity (framed as a “do you believe in CityPlan and the Visioning process” question) and the possible intrusion of laneway housing.

Interestingly, Peter took a few boos and catcalls as he defended his party’s decisions on those issues and he stuck to his guns, even getting a bit sharp with the crowd at one point. When asked “How do you know staff are not being wined and dined” by people involved with the McRae House decision, he snapped: “I really resent that question. That is not in any way what happened.” (To his credit, he also answered the question. Gregor misunderstood it and went into the Vision Vancouver spiel about needing campaign-finance reform.)

Several times, Peter said that being a leader requires making tough decisions and that he made them after carefully weighing the pros and cons. Gregor, on the other hand, made much more appeasing statements to the crowd, saying that the Arbutus Village development was “at this point only a framework and there’s opportunity for discussion,” while Peter said it was a project the city needed to go ahead with.

In a sign that someone has been doing his homework, Gregor noted in his opening speech that he was “disappointed” in the McRae House decision and that the city needs to work hard to protect sites like that, which are “a heritage gateway” to Shaughnessy.

On laneway housing, Peter said he’s a supporter of the concept while Gregor, again, underlined the “we’ll let you decide” theme. “I am a supporter but it’s all about how you do it. It can’t be forced. It’s got to be about respecting the neighbourhood.”

Again, on the CityPlan question, Peter defended the current planning process, which is all about figuring out how to comfortably absorb density throughout the city. “We have lots of Visions, but no plan that says where the next 300,000 people are going to go.”

Gregor again focused on the individual neighbourhoods. They each need their own plan so they can not be overwhelmed by a glut of sudden development, the way Fairview was when old three-storey apartments started being torn down and replaced by upscale towers. And, he added, playing to exactly what that crowd wanted to hear, “I’m concerned about neighbourhoods being overridden by EcoDensity, my sense is that it could over-write what a neighbourhood wants.”

So I started off this post by mentioning that council candidates finally got their say. What did they do with it? A brief rundown.

Kanman Wong, NPA: Insite is not a solution to drug problems; treatment is the solution. Second point was that the city needs more community centres.

Leanore Copeland, NPA: I spent three years in Ottawa, I know how to get gets done. I’m on all kinds of boards. The 2010 Olympics really matter.

Suzanne Anton, NPA: We have a lot of people coming to Vancouver — where are we going to put them? We need to figure that out. At the same time, we have to preserve our heritage. Also — the Kerrisdale community centre is ready for renewal. How about an arts centre there? Plus she defended the McRae House decision

Steve Wansleeben, Independent: The vacancy rate is near zero. You need to raise licence fees for landlords. Also, for elections, the voting age should be lowered to 16.

David Cadman, COPE: I rented near here once at 14th and Cypress. I’m disappointed at what the NPA council did to Southeast False Creek, because our individual neighbourhoods need to look like our city as a whole. The NPA’s taxes have gone through the roof. We are the only party that doesn’t take money from developers. (Applause for that.)

Ellen Woodsworth, COPE: I’m worried this beautiful city is falling into crisis. People feel like the city no longer listens. After I lost in 2005, I realized i needed to really listen o the community and stand up against the disintegration.

Heather Deal, Vision: Southeast False Creek could have worked if people had been allowed to come together and provide creative solutions. Project Civil City was misguided. The NPA keeps turning down good ideas, like having a mental-health advocate.

Geoff Meggs, Vision: One of the projects that will transform this city is Woodward’s and we haven’t seen that kind of creativty repeated. Homelessness is a moral issue and it’s hard to believe the city couldn’t come up with something so that thousands of people aren’t sleeping on the street. On affordable housing, if you work in this city, you should be able to live in it.

George Chow, Vision: There need to be limits on campaign donations and spending to make sure no one group has undue influence. We need more patrol officers on our streets. I support historical neighbourhoods like Shaughnessy. Yes, we have to make hard decisions, but we have to make wise decisions.

And on those wise words, I left for the night.

Another debate tonight about arts, 7 p.m. at the Arts Club.

The most noteworthy one of the night was Gary’s question to the two candidates about the Downtown Eastside. Given that the neighbourhood is a source of embarassment and that it attracts addicts and crime (his words, not mine), “what if the Downtown Eastside ceased to exist? What if gentrification consumed the Downtown Eastside? Would you think that was bad or beneficial?”

After the debate, both candidates told me they thought their opponent’s answer was one of the most revealing moments of the evening. Gregor said he thought Peter’s answer confirmed some of his worst suspicions. Peter said Gregor’s answer showed he wasn’t ready to make tough decisions.

Here’s what they had to say (I didn’t use a tape recorder, because that’s impossible to work with quickly at such a long event. I’m sure both parties with have complete transcripts available soon.)

Peter, who got to respond first to Gary’s question: “That’s the only solution.” He noted the city policy is to protect the existing housing stock and then what the neighbourhood needs is to “mix in some other kind of housing to normalize that neighbourhood.” Otherwise nothing will change, he said, and people will continue to live miserable existences where they barely survive and live in fear of being raped in their crummy hotel rooms, while their drug habits are fed by “buys on cellphones coming down in BMWs.” He cited Woodward’s as an example of the kind of project the area needs, which has mixed uses and which will “infuse the neighbourhood with social capital.” That means people with the energy to clean up the area, which the desperate types who are living day to day don’t have the means to do. He mentioned NPA council candidate Sean Bickerton as the kind of person he meant, an entertainment-industry guy who moved into Tinseltown and, when he found out about a significant social problem affecting his building, organized the strata council to make change.

Gregor’s response: “I worry when I hear what’s between the lines, when you use words like normalizing.” Gregor stressed that the Downtown Eastside isn’t just dysfunctional. “It’s already a community and they don’t necessarily want their neighbourhood transformed to some shiny happy new neighbourhood.” He said whatever plan is devised for the area, people who live there have to be part of it. “I don’t think there’s a solution that can be imposed by city hall. It’ll be a war zone if that’s what happens.” Ultimately, he said, “we need to see change but it has to be supportive.” He referred to the efforts that have been made by the group led by Milton Wong and Michael Clague in that area to try to develop a comprehensive plan for the area that everyone in the community can agree on.

Peter rebutted by saying there have been eight different plans for the area and nothing has changed. In fact, he said that even though the city developed a housing plan a few years ago with the input of local leaders, when market housing started coming into the area as projected, they immediately opposed it. He also noted that there are “some people who like it the way it is because they benefit from it in some perverse way.”

Other comments about the evening:

- Thankfully, it seemed to draw more than half the audience from regular people, i.e. not media, campaign workers or candidates. Instead, the evening, put on by the organization Leadership Vancouver, had a lot of people who work with businesses and non-profits in the city and who have worked with LV to improve their understanding of the community and their leadership skills.

- The candidates were each presented with a gift when the night ended by LV. Peter’s gift was a six-pack of Happy Planet juice, from the company that Gregor started. Gregor’s was a copy of Business in Vancouver, the newspaper that Peter started.

- It started off with both candidates sounding hesitant and rote-like, with the predictable emphasis on the themes we’ve heard so far: Gregor Robertson has no experience and you need experience when times are tough; Peter Ladner has shown no leadership and you need leadership when you’re facing a crisis of homelessness. Gregor’s signature, opening question: “Did the NPA do a good job? Is Vancouver a better city now than it was three years ago?” (Shades of Ronald Reagan)

- They each got to ask one question. Peter’s was: Why do you think you’re qualified to lead the city when you’ve never made a single decision in government or been to a full council meeting? (Answer: I think Vancouver is ready for a change in leadership. Direct experience at the city does not directly translate to good leadership. You need a mayor who is never afraid to speak up.) Gregor’s was: “Why should you trust Peter Ladner to make progress on homelessness? If you walk around Vancouver, in just about every neighbourhood, you will find people sleeping on the streets.” (Millions have been spent on housing. Who do you think has a better chance of cutting deal with the provincial government for more? To say nothing has been done is to say that you don’t understand what has happened here.)

- Gregor continued to be completely vague about what he will do to show leadership on homelessness, but I understand that some details are going to come out at the debate tomorrow night, which is specifically about homelessness, mental illness and affordable housing. (That’s at St. Andrew’s Wesley, Nelson and Burrard, and I’ll be on the panel.)

- They talked about what they would do to make the city more green. Gregor emphasized that the city should be trying dedicated cycling lanes and a new trial of a Burrard Bridge bike lane. (And this is a guy who really cycles the talk. After the debate, I saw him head off on his bike at 9 p.m., while Peter was still inside chatting to people.) He also said the city should have been pushing much harder in the past three years to develop district heating systems. And he blamed the lack of leadership on lack of political will and a structural problem at city hall that has relegated the sustainability office to the “basement.” (Actually, the staff cafeteria is in the basement. The sustainability office is under the Cambie Bridge.)

Ladner talked about what the city has already done — setting GHG reduction and carbon-neutral goals, passing new green-building standards, and his own motion to start a public bike-share system like the one in Paris.

There’s more, but I’m too tired to write any more tonight.

Overall, my impression was that Gregor is really hammering on the theme of people’s unhappiness with the blots on the city: homelessness, lack of significant green leadership, lack of financial control. Peter is focusing on the positives, emphasizing everything that’s good about Vancouver and what it has achieved. The real question people are being driven to answering in this vote: Are you happy with the Vancouver you see?

Your vote?

Over at my former home, The Vancouver Sun, Miro Cernetig has written a different kind of column about the two mayoral candidates, suggesting that at this point there’s little difference between them.

It’s going to be interesting to see whether the public does view these two candidates as substantially different. I think they are in a fundamental way, which I’ll talk about more later. In the meantime, your comments welcome.

The billboards are starting to go up. (There’s one a half block from my house with Peter Ladner and his smiling team saying something about creating a green and affordable city.) The Visionistas are happily out delivering lawn signs.

Yes, it’s time for the main battle. Well, almost, as soon as those two byelections in Vancouver-Fairview and the West End are out of the way. But we’ll pretend they aren’t happening.

So what is the world we’ve woken up to post-federal election? Well, media throughout the city continue to pursue the story of what’s happening with development and there seems to be fresh meat out there to feed them. CBC had a story tonight about the developers of the mega Infinity Towers project in Surrey, Jung Developments, asking for creditor protection. Their lender was Lehman Brothers. Oops, say no more. A link to their story here (go to the video clips on the left) and I’ll post the inadvertently hilarious news release that was sent out by the company earlier today. I understand there’s also another (not good) Millennium-related story about to break on a news radio station tomorrow.

That could end up colouring this campaign a fair bit. After all, land use is the main business of cities.

Speaking of which, since the development industry isn’t going so well these days, I hear that developers are letting political parties know that there won’t be as much money to throw around as in previous years. Maybe this won’t be the $2-million-per-party election after all.

That means it will all come to just plain hard work and scrappiness. So far, Vision is winning the scrappiness stakes. They had their guy, Gregor Robertson, out on the cameras in double time last Monday, when the story broke that the Olympic village might be in a bit of the mess and the city could end up being involved. Ladner’s team, as I noted previously, only managed to get out a news release late in the day.

At council yesterday, it sounds like the Visionistas ran rings around Ladner and team, as they backed them into a corner over the idea of banning plastic bags. Tim Stevenson brought this up earlier this year and it was such a hit with the public that, even though it’s far from the most effective environmental measure the city could take, he’s come back with it to champion the cause again. I understand that the meeting looked something like one of those unbalanced soccer matches where one team executes perfectly co-ordinated passes amongst the players while the other team flails around kicking the ball aimlessly and losing it on a regular basis. In the end, the NPA had to go along with Stevenson’s motion to get moving on the road to a ban. The Vision people are definitely feeling their oats. Look for Allen Garr’s column in the Courier tomorrow for more details on this.

On the other hand, the NPA’s been grinding away at all the hard policy stuff, one reason we are happy to sit at home with a beer and let them do the heavy lifting. The results of their one-day session held a few weeks ago, where they pulled together about three dozen experts in all kinds of issues, will be released tomorrow morning when they come out with their 50-point plan. (Uh-oh, this sounds a lot more ominous than Mayor Sam Sullivan’s or Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s five goals.)

In the meantime, Peter is struggling to keep up the pace because he’s been having tooth trouble. That was the reason he had to cancel his appearance at one of the thousands of Robertson-Ladner sparring matches that are still to unroll before election day. The Vancouver Peak Oil group got notified late last night that he wouldn’t be able to make it tonight because he was going in for one part of his three-part root canal sessions. Yuck.

Gregor went anyway and did his thing. Must be all that soccer training. But Peter, a marathoner, isn’t down for the count yet.

That’s all for the night. My blog stats continue to show startling numbers of you reading until 3 a.m., so enjoy.

Oh, and here’s the Infinity Towers news release.